What do you think of this idea?

Discussion in 'Irrigation' started by CRUZMISL, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. CRUZMISL

    CRUZMISL LawnSite Member
    from zone 6
    Posts: 186

    I am in need of some advice for a difficult area of my yard. The system was put in before the my fence was erected but now I have a tough area to irrigate (between the fence and the street).Ideally I'd add another zone but the work involved and repairs needed to the existing plumbing after adding another zone is more work than I care to take on.

    Here is my idea: I can remove the 4PGP's on the zone and space 11 MP2000's along the road. I have about 100ft to irrigate (my yard ends at the mailboxes). The width of the area from the fence to the road is 18ft. The MP2000's have a radius of 21ft and deliver .83gpm's. This will keep me below my 10GPM max.

    This will save me thhe trouble of adding another zone and should provide adequate coverage. I'm just wondering if the coverage will be good enough along the fence (it's pretty crappy now though).

    Below are pics of my area and also a pic of what the MP's look like working in my backyard.

    Thanks!!
    Joe

    Info on the MP2000's

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Rotor-Man

    Rotor-Man LawnSite Member
    Posts: 126

    In my area against code to irrigate over sidewalk or bike paths, not inforced, but scrub's way of designing a system on the cheap, rather than taking the time and effort of designing it properly. JMHO
     
  3. Dirty Water

    Dirty Water LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 6,794

    You have some serious overspray issues in your backyard. Its probably not good for your fence to get soaked like that.

    Personally, I'd cap off the 4 PGP's that are by your sidewalk, and install two zones of RB 1804 sprays, I did a quick MSpaint picture to give you an idea. I wouldn't go with that exact head placement :)

    On otherside, I'd add a zone of PGP's.

    I think this is the only way to properly do that area.

    side.gif
     
  4. bicmudpuppy

    bicmudpuppy LawnSite Silver Member
    Posts: 2,781

    They haven't made it against code in most places around here yet, but it is bad design and I feel will become illegal at some point. BUT, I lose bids every day because I won't water the concrete that doesn't grow. If we could just grow concrete and buildings with water, we wouldn't have to install sprinklers :)
     
  5. Wet_Boots

    Wet_Boots LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 48,041

    There must be some homeowner that thinks that sounds great. Maybe I'll meet one someday. On a corner property, with a few mammoth maple trees in the sidewalk strip, the price might be higher. Keeping joggers dry at three in the morning isn't high up on anyone's priority list.
     
  6. Dirty Water

    Dirty Water LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 6,794

    What about keeping his fence dry? I've got the feeling that his system wasn't properly adjusted and designed to begin with.

    Changing the rotor zone to two mist zones would be very easy, especially if there was a sleeve installed.
     
  7. Wet_Boots

    Wet_Boots LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 48,041

    What, it has an umbrella over it? What fence isn't waterproof? Admittedly, you don't improve a fence by sprinkling it, but I've seen many homes where an added-later-on fence made the sprinkler placements look screwy, but if there were enough heads close enough together, the coverage could be maintained.

    On the system in question here, there are a number of solutions. Some more PGP's could be placed along the fence, and run with the ones aready there, after re-nozzling them. Frankly, keeping a sidewalk dry doesn't rate too highly with me, unless it's a sod install with a fair amount of pedestrian traffic.
     
  8. Rotor-Man

    Rotor-Man LawnSite Member
    Posts: 126

    "Frankly keeping a sidewalk dry doesn't rate to highly with me".

    Just the type of competition I enjoy competing with! I sell on the premise that a PROPERLY installed system benefits everyone, especially when it is done the correct way. Lastly as Jon said the line to the rotors is already under the sidewalk for properly designed zone of sprays, and another zone should be added for rotors running by the fence towards the sidewalk. Love the so-called PROS that CUT corners to benefit the bottom line and not the benefit of the customer. JMHO
     
  9. Wet_Boots

    Wet_Boots LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 48,041

    What if the sidewalk strip is seven feet wide? And around two hundred and fifty feet long. With those unlovely maples and their roots. I remember one guy who wanted a quote for a system just like the local newspaper described a 'proper system' to be, and having read the article, which wanted dry sidewalks and heavy precipitation rates, I did up an estimate with mist heads on the sidewalk strip (and all over, I think) and the homeowner's jaw dropped, and he never looked at me with trust ever again. The system that did go in sprayed over the sidewalk, like every other one in that neighborhood.

    On a small lawn that figures to be all mist heads, sidewalk strip heads are a natural. On a large lawn, it becomes an extra-cost item, compared to designs that ignore the presence of a sidewalk. It may be 'unprofessional' to be leaving any money on the table by leaving it up to the homeowner to decide about sidewalk strips, but the lawn gets good coverage either way. Water landing on a sidewalk tends to roll off on one side or another, so much of it winds up watering the lawn anyway.
     
  10. BSME

    BSME LawnSite Senior Member
    from Midwest
    Posts: 829

    for what it's worth I have to redesign a system tomorrow because the original sytem had rotors on both sides of the sidewalk.... way too much water was getting into the street to try to get the corners...

    now it's costing him a grand to revamp it so that he has mist heads on the easment and moving the rotors along the edge of the sidewalk because he wont be blowing over them anymore...

    it's this kind of situation I mean when people are trying to save money on the initial installation but ends up costing them way more in the long run... this would have cost an extra $250 to do it this way the first time?
     

Share This Page